[News] Patrick Kane being investigated for rape. UPD: DA announces no charges

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MBates

For those who doubt false allegations happen, I have personally defended a client who was subjected to one by a stepdaughter. It destroyed him and his family. And he was innocent (not just because of the legal standard of proof but because HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING).

Two questions come to my mind:

(1) where in this thread has anyone doubted that false allegations ever happen?

(2) if you weren't there, how do you know that your client DIDN'T DO ANYTHING?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Again, in the interview with the juror,

Q: Was any witness more convincing than another?
Foreman: I think that the accusing witness made for a very good case and a very credible testimony.

The jury foreman simply believed the woman's version of events...taking the "she said" side...NOT evidence from a medical person, who would substantiate injuries, NOT evidence from police, about other forensic evidence. Just her story, and mind you, she was a beauty pageant contestant playing to a majority male and white jury. This just seems a little thin for a conviction.

again, I know zero details about the case, but hypothetically speaking, if Mike Tyson threatens the complainant and therefore the complainant submits to the sexual activity out of fear, what medical or forensic evidence would possibly exist that would corroborate the complainant's account?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Two questions come to my mind:

(1) where in this thread has anyone doubted that false allegations ever happen?

(2) if you weren't there, how do you know that your client DIDN'T DO ANYTHING?

On your point (1) - I suppose no one has said they never happen...I nevertheless thought it rather useful to note actual examples given posts suggesting false allegations are rare. In my experience they are not.

On your point (2) - fair enough...I cannot ever know for sure...but the police and prosecutor came to the same conclusion...I feel comfortable with my post...but concede I cannot be 100% certain...as indeed I was not there.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What on earth are you talking about? This is simply untrue (and would be completely absurd.) Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could even find such a proposition plausible.

Obviously, people consent to sexual activity while intoxicated. A person only loses the ability to consent to sexual activity when they are so intoxicated that they have essentially lost consciousness due to alcohol or drug use.

I disagree...you do not have to essentially lose consciousness to lose capacity to consent due to intoxication. The problem perhaps is that 'intoxication' means different things to people when they use it in their day to day discussions. Here's a summary from the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2012:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc...12abca147.html

"The Criminal Code explicitly provides that there can be no consent if the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity (s. 273.1). Capacity to consent to sexual activity requires something more than the capacity to execute baseline physical functions. The question is the degree to which intoxication negates comprehension or volition. A drunk complainant may retain the capacity to consent: R. v. R.(J) (2006), 2006 CanLII 22658 (ON SC), 40 C.R. (6th) 97 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 17‑19, 43. Mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity: R. v. Jensen (1996), 1996 CanLII 1237 (ON CA), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 430 (Ont. C.A.). Nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control: R. v. Merritt, [2004] O.J. No. 1295 (Ont. S.C.J.). A drunken consent is still a valid consent. Where the line is crossed into incapacity may be difficult to determine at times. Expert evidence may assist and even be necessary, in some cases (R. v. Faulkner (1997), 1997 CanLII 1193 (ON CA), 120 C.C.C. (3d) 377 (Ont. C.A.)), though it is not required as a matter of law: R. v. Merritt, supra; R. v. Hernandez, [1997] A.J. No. 955 (Alta. C.A.), R. v. Cedeno, 2005 ONCJ 91 (CanLII), 195 C.C.C. (3d) 468 at para. 18."


As I hinted at before...how anyone is supposed to make valid real-life decisions based on this state of the law is beyond me.

[mikephoen]

I wonder if lawyer is the most common occupation on CP?

Serious question. It must be up near the top.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MBates

On your point (1) - I suppose no one has said they never happen...I nevertheless thought it rather useful to note actual examples given posts suggesting false allegations are rare. In my experience they are not...

Extrapolating from the data that Makarov provided, it would seem that false allegations are in fact comparatively rare...

Originally Posted by Makarov

SOURCE: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033...ultats-eng.htm

There is no way of knowing which of those allegations of sexual assault were true or false. However, even if we (absurdly) cynically believed that every report of sexual assault to police was false in 2007, and only half of reports of sexual assaults to the GSS (with no real possible motive to fabricate) were true, the number of true sexual assault reports in 2004(255,000) absolutely dwarfs the number of false sexual assault reports (24,200).

It's a very crude exercise, but I think convincingly demonstrates that the two "fractions" are on a totally different order of magnitude.

I am curious to know if this notion that "false allegations are not rare" is purely an intuition drawn from experience, or if you have anything actually quantifiable to substantiate your claim. If not, than I would warrant that your supposition based on experience is likely not accurate. I am more inclined to form conclusions based on Makarov's numbers than your gut.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Extrapolating from the data that Makarov provided, it would seem that false allegations are in fact comparatively rare...



I am curious to know if this notion that "false allegations are not rare" is purely an intuition drawn from experience, or if you have anything actually quantifiable to substantiate your claim. If not, than I would warrant that your supposition based on experience is likely not accurate. I am more inclined to form conclusions based on Makarov's numbers than your gut.

Probably experience. The experience of a defense attorney would not give fair view of the norm

[Hackey]

Statistics on false accusations would likely need to be broken down further by case to truly draw the most accurate information out of them. There likely would be a difference between cases with celebrities, wealthy, family, college, etc. I didn't see the post on the statistics so maybe that was done but I'm not sure general stats are going to reflect every situation accurately.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by MBates

I disagree...you do not have to essentially lose consciousness to lose capacity to consent due to intoxication. The problem perhaps is that 'intoxication' means different things to people when they use it in their day to day discussions. Here's a summary from the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2012:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc...12abca147.html

"The Criminal Code explicitly provides that there can be no consent if the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity (s. 273.1). Capacity to consent to sexual activity requires something more than the capacity to execute baseline physical functions. The question is the degree to which intoxication negates comprehension or volition. A drunk complainant may retain the capacity to consent: R. v. R.(J) (2006), 2006 CanLII 22658 (ON SC), 40 C.R. (6th) 97 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 17‑19, 43. Mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity: R. v. Jensen (1996), 1996 CanLII 1237 (ON CA), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 430 (Ont. C.A.). Nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control: R. v. Merritt, [2004] O.J. No. 1295 (Ont. S.C.J.). A drunken consent is still a valid consent. Where the line is crossed into incapacity may be difficult to determine at times. Expert evidence may assist and even be necessary, in some cases (R. v. Faulkner (1997), 1997 CanLII 1193 (ON CA), 120 C.C.C. (3d) 377 (Ont. C.A.)), though it is not required as a matter of law: R. v. Merritt, supra; R. v. Hernandez, [1997] A.J. No. 955 (Alta. C.A.), R. v. Cedeno, 2005 ONCJ 91 (CanLII), 195 C.C.C. (3d) 468 at para. 18."


As I hinted at before...how anyone is supposed to make valid real-life decisions based on this state of the law is beyond me.

Be a human being. I get that being falsely accused of rape is maybe the biggest fear any guy has. But the odds of a that happening have to be up there with getting hit by lightning or attacked by a shark.

And if you actually have doubts, ask her. If you still have doubts, I suppose you could turn on the voice recorder on your phone without her knowing, and work something about how hot and consensual this encounter is into your bedroom dialogue.

Be a gentleman.

[CliffFletcher]

The notion that sexual consent laws are straightforward and clear to any right-thinking person, and that anyone suggesting otherwise is some kind of neanderthal with dubious motives, is an unhelpful attitude. And frankly, it comes across as motivated more by halo-polishing than by an interest in honest and useful discussion. This is important stuff, but it's by no means simple. A lot of people want to believe that important stuff is always simple, so they can discount any dissenting opinion as motivated by ill-will, rather than address that complexity.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Be a human being. I get that being falsely accused of rape is maybe the biggest fear any guy has. But the odds of a that happening have to be up there with getting hit by lightning or attacked by a shark.

And if you actually have doubts, ask her. If you still have doubts, I suppose you could turn on the voice recorder on your phone without her knowing, and work something about how hot and consensual this encounter is into your bedroom dialogue.

Be a gentleman.

I'd have to figure that the situations where the guy honestly didn't think he was raping a woman but she thought he was are extremely rare. I could be wrong but seems like if you were a non agressive decent guy the woman wouldn't fear saying something. If she goes along with it unforced and says nothing then the onus would kind of have to fall on her. People seem to be focusing so much on what is consent. We can talk legalities all we want but I think most adults know what is consent and what is not when it's happening.

[jschick88]

New details are emerging about the time that Patrick Kane spent in a downtown Buffalo nightclub last weekend and the allegations made by a woman who claims that Kane raped her after meeting her in the club and taking her to his Town of Hamburg waterfront home.

Sources with knowledge of the investigation said that the young woman who has accused the hockey superstar of rape had bite marks on her shoulders and a scratch on her leg after the alleged attack.

The woman alleges that Kane invited her and a female friend to his home for a private party after they met him last Saturday night at SkyBar, a popular nightclub on Franklin Street, the sources said.

Shortly after she and her friend arrived at Kane’s home on Old Lakeshore Road, the accuser alleges that she went by herself into another room, where Kane followed her, overpowered her and raped her, the sources said.

The woman left Kane’s home with her friend and used a cellphone to call a relative immediately after the alleged attack. She then went to a local hospital for examination, and police were called afterward, the sources said.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...-kane-20150809

[Hackey]

Kind of tough to really draw much out of that. The bite marks did strike me as a bit odd though. Why would you want to intetionally leave evidence like that if you were raping someone? Scratches obviously could happen if she resisted. Also interesting she had a friend with her. Wondering where the friend was when this allegedly happened.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Kind of tough to really draw much out of that. The bite marks did strike me as a bit odd though. Why would you want to intetionally leave evidence like that if you were raping someone? Scratches obviously could happen if she resisted. Also interesting she had a friend with her. Wondering where the friend was when this allegedly happened.

Look at gomeshi. Brought girls home who were willing to have sex with them and started punching him.

If rapists were logical and did things that made sense they wouldn't be rapists

[pseudoreality]

If the above is true, I don't see how there won't be chargers. Leaking this information has to contaminate the jury pool though. I guess there could be non-hockey fans in the area who aren't following the story.

Sent from my Arc using Tapatalk

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Kind of tough to really draw much out of that. The bite marks did strike me as a bit odd though. Why would you want to intetionally leave evidence like that if you were raping someone? Scratches obviously could happen if she resisted. Also interesting she had a friend with her. Wondering where the friend was when this allegedly happened.

You seem to have a very strange view of what rape is. If someone is choosing to rape someone they aren't thinking in a rational state, including about what evidence they are leaving behind.

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'd have to figure that the situations where the guy honestly didn't think he was raping a woman but she thought he was are extremely rare. I could be wrong but seems like if you were a non agressive decent guy the woman wouldn't fear saying something. If she goes along with it unforced and says nothing then the onus would kind of have to fall on her. People seem to be focusing so much on what is consent. We can talk legalities all we want but I think most adults know what is consent and what is not when it's happening.

Again you seem to have this vision that rapists can only be some sort of monster that we can easily identify. Some rape victims knew their rapist - and actually still know them after the incident - because the raper has no idea they did something wrong. Do you think a husband raping his wife identifies himself as a rapist? Or what about a lot of date rapes where the guy just thinks it was a perfect way to end the night. And I would even further and say IF Kane did this - I seriously doubt he sees it as rape. And that's the problem.

I guess the main point though is that even if most adults know what consent is - rapists don't. And rapists comes in all shapes and sizes.

[sureLoss]

Looks like this is going to be a he said /she said case.

Assuming what the Buffalo News is reporting is accurate, Kane's lawyers will argue that it was consensual.

As long as she is credible, I can't see how Kane isn't arrested.

[DJones]

Edit; Almost word for word copy of above post haha

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GGG

Look at gomeshi. Brought girls home who were willing to have sex with them and started punching him.

If rapists were logical and did things that made sense they wouldn't be rapists

Yeah I would agree. There probably is a wide spectrum. Guys who are obviously very bold and careless, guys who are very calculated and careful and then everything in between. I think in a situation where it was strictly your word versus her word you might be willing to be a bit more bold and careless. Knowing she brought a friend to your home I'd figure you might be a bit more careful. Rape between a random stranger where you might not even be identified and rape when you clearly know who the person is and have potential witnesses to a degree seems a bit different. But ya anything is possible. Obviously I'm thinking from a more logical point of view and they may not be. I don't neccesarily believe that rapists are incapable of doing the same though.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Be a human being. I get that being falsely accused of rape is maybe the biggest fear any guy has. But the odds of a that happening have to be up there with getting hit by lightning or attacked by a shark.

Not so...In the town that I live, there are any number of "statutory rape" charges against HS aged guys every year...their crime? Having consensual sex with a slightly younger girlfriend. Also, quite a few embarrassed young ladies (they got caught by parents in the act), cop out and blame the guy, statutory or not, the poor guy has the law fall on him like a ton of bricks.

At the hospital where I work, a female patient was unhappy with a male nurse, because, he was following doctor's orders and limiting the times that the lady could get narcotics...her "get even" solution? Ruin the guy's life with a ludicrous accusation. With just an unsubstantiated claim, the RN had to surrender his license, thereby losing his livelihood. He was bullied by police, and was coerced into a false "confession". And DESPITE a judge having BLASTED the cops and prosecutors, the charges have NOT been formally dropped after TWO YEARS! http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=35238819 The RN was a "charge nurse" on a night shift, when this alleged incident occurred, so, he was with the LPNs (who cannot administer IV push meds in Utah), aides and clerks continuously. It would have been impossible for him to have been away from his station for any extended amount of time, he would have had to have done this deed in a room with a door, open to the hall, near the Nurses station, that could NOT be locked. Moreover, the staff vouched for his whereabouts that night.

My practical experience in observing rape cases, is that there seems to be an assumption of GUILT, in an effort to protect victims.